from A. W. Forbes Taylor formerly Chief Inspector in the Department of the Controller and Auditor-General, Natal Branch, who was placed on the permanent civil list of Natal in 1879 and was retired in 1911, praying that the House may grant him three months’ salary and interest thereon in lieu of unexhausted leave, and an amount to cover his expenses, or for other relief.

Germiston) from J. Budge and 57 others, inhabitants of Johannesburg, praying for legislation providing for the direct popular veto. whereby men and women may decide by ballot on the continuance, reduction, or issue of liquor licences, or for other relief; and a similar petition from the Rev. J. Cliffe and 30 others, inhabitants of Johannesburg and suburbs.

a similar petition from A. Sowden and 103 others, inhabitants of Queen’s Town.

a similar petition from B. M Heydenrych and 25 others, inhabitants of Hopefield.

asked leave to give evidence before a Select Committee of the Senate.

Leave was granted.

moved the third reading of the Wine, Spirits, Beer and Vinegar Bill.

said he desired to move, as an amendment, that the Bill be re-committed. He did not do this from any spirit of obstruction. This was the second try that he had had. This Bill was one of the most sloppy and slovenly prepared Bills he had ever read. The Minister might tell them that it was the work of his experts. They were certainly not experts in English composition. He should like those experts to go before any first year class in chemistry and defend some of the statements in this Bill To borrow a phrase used by the Minister last session, the Bill was “neither grammar nor sense.” Clause 17 defined the meaning of beer, and after saying that it should include ale, porter, spruce beer, black beer, it went on “and any other liquor made or sold as a description of beer, provided that such liquor contains not more than three per cent of proof spirit.” This, he contended; was exceedingly dangerous, and gave a large opportunity for unprincipled men, of whom we had a few in this country, to do a large amount of harm. Clause 20 said that no person shall under the name of “ spirit vinegar ” or “ distilled vinegar,” sell any spirit vinegar or distilled vinegar to which has been added any colouring matter, before, during, or after distillation, and which is not entirely free from all colour other than that imparted to it by the actual process of distillation. There was no sense in that clause. The point was that the addition of colouring matter, and the time when that colouring matter should be added, had no weight. During the process of distillation, nothing was added. The thing was nonsensical on the face of it. Why they should make themselves before the world more ridiculous than they tried to be in that House, he did not know. In clause 22 they had a definition of “malt vinegar,” which read at the end: “the starch whereof has been converted into fermentable sugar by the direct agency of malt.” That was putting the cart before the horse. The malt was the effect, not the cause, while here it was made the cause and not the effect. In clause 36. “ adulterated articles” were spoken of, but nowhere in the Bill was the term “adulterated” or “ adulteration ” defined. He now came to what he regarded as the worst part of the Bill. On page 10, line 54, the words “a description of beer” appeared, and he was told that the proper Dutch word to correspond to “description” was not “soort,” as stated in the Bill, but “ beschrijving.” His point was that if the Dutch word in the Bill were correct, then the English word “ description ” was wrong, and vice versa. What was “description”? According to this Bill a man might be punished, not for selling beer, but for selling “a description of beer.” The two things were not the same. The whole thing was a display of ignorance and stupidity.

seconded the amendment.

said he thought there were more substantial reasons than the hon. member had urged for the re-committal of this Bill. Under the new rules, only verbal amendments or amendments to the title of the Bill could be made on the third reading. There were at least two very material alterations which would have to be made if the Minister intended to keep faith with the House with regard to certain promises he had made. In clause 16 it was laid down that 5.3 per cent of the total materials used in any brew were allowed under the Minister’s proposition as sugar, in the form of sugar solution. The Minister distinctly let them understand the other day that under the law as it stood in the other Provinces, as much sugar as was possible to use was not being used, but that under his Bill, if they took his so-called concession, brewers throughout the country would be allowed to use 10 per cent of sugar in the making or priming of their beer. Proceeding, Mr. Struben said that in line 32 a provision would be absolutely necessary to make some provision, if another promise which had been made was intended to be carried out; that what the brewer did not use in priming in one beer might be allowed to be used in another beer, and it would be necessary to have some such provision as would allow the Minister to check the total used in any brew. If the Minister said 25 per cent was abnormally high, then let him fix a limit. He thought that 20 per cent was by no means an unfair limit to put upon these people, seeing that nothing had been shown or said in that House to prove that 20 or 30 per cent was bad for anybody. He submitted that if the Minister wanted to do what he had promised in words, it was necessary to re-commit that Bill, otherwise the Minister might regret that he would have to withdraw certain clauses of that Bill if he found it did not go in the way he liked. Then they could withdraw the whole chapter and leave out the word “beer” from the title. If the Minister was satisfied with that, so were they, and that would leave three of the Provinces as they were.

said that with regard to what had been stated about the promise made, what he had done was to make a promise to give the manufacturers a certain period of time, if that Bill came into operation, for the purpose of altering their methods of manufacture. He was understood to say that that alteration would be made in “another place,” and he hoped the hon. member (Mr. Haggar) would withdraw his motion.

said that, under these conditions, he would withdraw his amendment.

The amendment was accordingly withdrawn.

thereupon moved the formal motion that the Bill be read a third time.

said that those whose interests they represented, and whose case they wanted to bring before the House, had met with somewhat scant justice. They had, in every way they could, tried to meet the case, and put several alternatives before the Minister, and that with all propriety and good manner, he hoped. All the evidence was in the direction they had taken—that it was legitimate to use sugar in the manufacture of beer. The strength of the arguments had grown upon him every time he had gone into them. They had offered to meet the Minister with regard to the alcoholic strength, and the manufacturers were perfectly prepared to agree to any proposal, so that any man selling beer containing more than 5 per cent of alcohol per volume would be guilty of an offence. Continuing, the hon. member reiterated the arguments he had used on a previous occasion as to why sugar should be allowed in beer, and said that they had not been met on any of these points raised. They were of opinion that in that particular matter their constituents were prejudiced in a manner in which they ought not to be prejudiced; and he would move, as an amendment, that the word “ now ” be deleted, and the words “ this day six months ” be inserted instead.

in seconding the amendment, said that that Bill affected three of the Provinces very materially, and he hoped the hon. members on the opposite side of the House would also vote for that amendment. The last thing they wanted to do was to frighten away foreign investors from that country, and the surest way of stopping people investing money in that country was to interfere, as the House was doing, with the manufacture of beer. He would support the amendment.

said that he felt constrained now to support the amendment of the hon. member for Queen’s Town. As the hon. Minister knew perfectly well, he (Mr. Struben) represented a constituency which bordered on the wine districts, and he had constantly acted in a way which had assisted the wine farmers. Proceeding, he referred to the Bill which the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), at the time he was Prime Minister of the Cape, had, as the hon. member said, “shoved through the House ” in the interests of the wine farmers. Now the Minister of Justice was “ shoving through ” another Bill in the interests of the wine farmers. The position was not the same in that House as it had been in the old Cape House of Assembly, where the wine farmers had had a preponderating influence, which had not been to their benefit, or that of the people either. As a friend of the wine farmers, he said that they were behaving in a way that would recoil upon their heads. A Bill otherwise good was going to be thrown out of the House if he could assist in that way at all, because of these provisions they were now discussing. The Bill, if passed, would be for the benefit of the wine farmers, but he thought if it were not passed they could still go on. When the Minister behaved in the way he did, then he forfeited all regard of people who were endeavouring to act fairly and justly.

said he wanted to explain why he was going to vote for the motion of the hon. member for Queen’s Town. The old Bill brought before the Cape House of Parliament was a very good Bill, but he wanted to point out that the wine and brandy farmers and the liquor trade occupied then a much more powerful position than they did now, and therefore because that was a Bill to do away with bad and strongly fortified wine, pressure was brought upon the Government by the wine and brandy farmers and the liquor trade. He did his best when the Bill was in committee to get the Minister to consent to the lessening of the amount of fortification which was allowed in the wine and spirit trade. He thought that the Minister would be well advised if he recognised the changed conditions in the Union Parliament, because the Minister knew that they would never get a market for Cape Wines in the world if they allowed this fortification to continue. It simply meant the making of wine from bad and inferior grapes, and fortifying it strongly. This was practically put into the Bill in order to satisfy the trade of the wine and brandy farmers.

He thought the time had come when the Minister should have the courage of his convictions, and say that he would not allow this undue fortification of wine. The Minister did not see fit to accept his proposal that fortification should be reduced by one-fourth, and if there had been no other reason than this, he would have voted for the motion that the Bill be read that day six months, in order to register his objection to this undue fortification of wine. Take the alcoholic strength of beer and wine. Light Cape beer only contained from three to five per cent of alcohol, and even imported beer only contained from seven to eight per cent., whereas wine contained from 14 to 25 per cent. He challenged anyone to say that wine fortified up to 20 or 25 per cent, was wine at all. It was not wine at all, it was spirits, and the coloured people got drunk upon that horrible stuff. They got drunk ten years ago and five years ago. Farmers could make this stuff from the most miserable rotten grapes. (Ministerial cries of “No.”) He heard hon. members crying “No,” but they knew that they had to put in these spirits to preserve the wine. It was not only the liquor sellers that made this kind of thing—there were wine farmers who made it also. A large amount of the drunkenness among the coloured people was due to this fortified wine made by the wine farmers. He knew the effects of beer and wine drinking upon people, but he was not going to speak of the pathological effects of wine and beer on the system. He was looking at the matter from a different standpoint. In this Bill, which was brought in for the purpose of making a pure wine, they were allowing fortification up to 20 and 25 per cent. He was not there to say what sugar ought to be allowed in the manufacture of beer, but the result of his investigations was that he found in Great Britain, where they allowed a free mash tub, the limit to which sugar was used was about ten per cent He did not feel justified, therefore, in recording his vote to allow 25 per cent of sugar, but honestly, and with a good heart, he would vote for the rejection of this Bill, which in effect would leave matters in each Province in their present condition.

said he also intended to support the motion that the Bill be read that day six months, but he did not intend to support the motion upon the grounds that the shareholders in the breweries were British or foreign, nor upon the grounds that it might stop the influx of capital, but he intended to vote for it on the grounds laid down by the hon. member for Tembuland. Upon what should be the constituents of beer, they had made the position clear. If his memory served him rightly it was claimed, not that sugar was an adulterant in the sense that it debased the beer, but solely and wholly on the grounds that the addition of sugar increased the alcohol in beer. What beet was there in existence which had so much alcohol present as was allowed in wine? He would join with the hon. member when he referred to the pernicious effect of imbibing these poisonous decoctions called wine on the coloured people of Cape Town. Who was not a Capetonian, but he had been here long enough to observe the effect of this stuff on the coloured people. (Cheers.) He invited hon. members to go up the finest street in Cape Town on a Saturday night (Plein-street) and see the effect of it. It was painful, and a disgrace to the city. According to hon. members on the Government side, the addition of sugar would increase the alcoholic percentage of beer. What about the English standard? In ale it was six per cent., porter five per cent., and Munich beer four per cent

On the motion being put that the word “now,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the question the result was given in favour of the “Ayes.”

called for a division, which was taken, with the following result:

said he would move as an amendment to the motion that the Bill be read a third time, that the word “ beer ” in the title of the Bill be deleted wherever it occurred. That was in accordance with Rule 168, which allowed him to move an amendment to the title of the Bill, and he moved that in order to give the Minister an opportunity of withdrawing the beer chapter from the Bill.

I cannot accept it.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill read a third time.

moved the third reading of the Transfer Duty Reduction Bill.

said he would ask the Minister why he did not at once come down to the basis that prevailed in the Transvaal of 1₄ per cent.? He wanted to point out that the sooner they realised to the fullest extent that they had reached Union, the better it would be. This bickering would continue to go on with Provinces unless their taxation was equalised. It may be said that, if it could be brought down to the basis of 1⅟₄ per cent., further taxation would have to be imposed. The sooner they faced that the better. He would like to ask the Minister if there was not something at the back of this; but he did not accuse him of anything. But he might come to the House next year, and say that, as they had a 2 per cent duty in the other Provinces, they should now have a 2 per cent duty in the Transvaal also. If he would assure the House that he would not do that, hon. members would be satisfied.

said: Did not the hon. member understand this was a Bill to take taxation off the land, and, therefore, it would go through the House like greased lightning?

Germiston) said he did not agree with the hon. member (Mr. Nathan). The probability was that if the duty were brought down to the Transvaal level other subsidies would be asked for by the Provincial Councils in the way of compensation, and the Transvaal would have to pay those subsidies. (Laughter.) On the whole, he thought it better that they should be thankful for small mercies.

said the hon. member for Jeppe had not the slightest idea of what the intention of the Bill was. (Ministerial cheers.) The Bill would enable the people the hon. member for Jeppe said he represented, to acquire land on cheaper terms than at present. If there ever was a measure tending towards the benefit of the democracy this was one. This just showed how hon. members on the cross benches misrepresented the people they said they represented. (Laughter.) He hoped their constituents would take careful notice of the hon. member’s speech that day, because it showed that his true friendship was not with the people, but quite for another party. (Hear, hear.)

said the hon. members on the cross benches were still unregenerate enough to believe that the Bill was going to benefit the landowners or potential landowners.

said he was exceedingly glad to hear that the hon. members on the cross benches did not represent such people as men at Salt River. (Cheers.) That was a contention he had always advanced, but he was glad to have had it from the hon. member’s own lips. (Laughter.) The hon. members on the cross benches were again trying to sacrifice the interests of those they represented to their own socialistic theories. (Cheers.)

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

stated that when progress was reported yesterday the Committee was considering the following amendments proposed by the Select Committee, viz.: In line 16, to insert the following proviso, viz.: “ Provided that, if in any Province the normal or recurrent expenditure for any financial year after the year ending the 31st day of March, 1914, exceed the normal or recurrent expenditure of the previous financial year by more than 7⅟₂ per cent., that Province shall, in respect of the amount by which such expenditure exceeds the expenditure of the previous financial year by more than 7⅟₂ per cent., be entitled by way of subsidy in the next succeeding financial year to one-third only, in lieu of one-half, of that excess ”; and in line 27, after “Provided,” to insert “further.” Upon this Sir Lional Phillips had moved, as an amendment to this amendment: In lines 21 and 23, to omit “ 7⅟₂” and to substitute “5”; and in line 26, after “excess,” to insert “and the permissive annual rise of 5 per cent shall be calculated upon the original sum only and not upon any previous rise of 5 per cent.”

said he wished to withdraw his amendment for the substitution of 5 for 7⅟₂per cent., because he understood there was a strong feeling against reducing the 7⅟₂per cent subsidy.

Leave was given for the amendment to be withdrawn.

said he wished to move as an amendment: In line 26, to add at the end of the provision: “ The increase shall be calculated upon the normal or recurrent expenditure of 1914 and the rise of that sum upon which a subsidy of one-half shall be payable may be seven and a half per cent in 1915, fifteen per cent in 1916, twenty-two and a half per cent in 1917, and thirty per cent in 1918.” That made it clear that the annual rise would be 7⅟₂ per cent., and no more as fair as the country was concerned in the payment of the subsidy of one-half. Of course, that would not prevent the Provincial Councils making their expenditure anything they liked, but it did confine the amount which the Union Treasury should contribute to the Provincial Councils’ expenditure. Taking the Provincial Council estimates for 1914, their expenditure was £3,400,000, the Union’s share of which would be £1,700,000 Supposing in 1915 the Provincial Councils’ estimates amounted to 4 millions, the 7⅟₂ per cent would amount to £255,000, so that the subsidy would be payable upon £3,655,000. The Union’s share of the subsidy would be £1,827,500, and the Union would have to pay one-third of £345,000, so that we would have to contribute in 19Í5 £1,942,500. In 1916 the Provincial Councils under this arrangement would be justified in raising their expenditure by 7₂ per cent., so that they would be able to claim the half subsidy on four millions, and an increase of 7⅟₂ per cent., thus making their total expenditure £4,300,000, of which the Union’s share would be £2,150,000, a rise of 26⅟₂ per cent of the Union’s subsidy in two years. The House should give its very grave consideration to the possibility of the Union having to raise its contribution in this extraordinary and extravagant manner. On the same basis the Provincial Councils’ estimates for 1917 would amount to £4,622,500, and the Union’s share would be £2,311,250. In 1918 the Provincial Councils’ expenditure might rise to £4,969,187, of which the Union’s share would be £2,484,593—a rise in four years of 46 per cent in the Provincial Councils’ expenditure. He understood that the provision adopted by the Select Committee was only carried by the casting vote of the Minister. If the Provincial Councils in the first year after the Bill took effect, raised their expenditure as high as they could, it would mean that in the following year they would be entitled to a contribution of half of the whole of their expenditure. Unless the House adopted some safeguard, it would be throwing itself absolutely into the arms of the Provincial Councils.

said that on a matter of procedure supposing that provision were voted upon, would it be possible for him to move an amendment to section 1 of the Bill?

No.

Then I had better move it now. Proceeding, he said he wished to move, in sub-section (1), line 14, after “expenditure,” to insert “the estimates of which shall have been submitted to and approved by the Minister of Finance.” That would ensure that the Minister had sure control over the subsidies. They were not going to give the subsidies on the £ for £ principle, but on the expenditure, and this expenditure might be incurred he would not say was likely to be incurred, but still it was possible to be incurred for frills, ornaments, useless expenditure, but still gratifying to the vanity of localities or to the vanity of individuals. Here actually they, who represented the poor agriculturist, or the poor working-man, were going to have their constituents taxed for the purpose of some expenditure of the most extravagant kind, which nobody would ever dream of doing, except they got the money from heaven, which those fortunate Provincial Councils were going to do. The Prime Minister last night shocked him when he threw up the reins.

The Prime Minister?

Well, he ought to be; I predicted his future so long ago, but it is an anticipation. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said that he found that the Minister of Finance, who was in charge of the finances of this country, simply threw up the reins, and he appeared to have no control over these things. He (Mr. Merriman) wanted to specify in this Bill that they thought he should have control. He hoped’ the Minister would accept the amendment, which was only put in for the purpose of strengthening his hands.

said that the more he listened to the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman), the more he was forced to the conclusion that the “Father” of Provincial Councils was determined to strangle his offspring. Section 85 of the South Africa Act gave the Minister complete control over the Provincial Councils. What was the object of trying to limit the Provincial Councils, first of all, to 7⅟₂ per cent., if it were not for the purpose of trying to strangle them? He thought that to limit the Councils in this way was most unfair, and was going to have a very bad effect.

said he could not understand Mr. Merriman. Why, if the amendment were carried, they would be no better off than they were today, and the Provincial Councils’ present difficulties would be perpetuated, and the difficulties of the Minister of Finance would also remain. The complaint of the Provincial Councils was that there was no finality about their position, and no stability, and they demanded legislation, so that they might know where they were. Mr. Merriman’s amendment would leave them at the mercy of the Minister of Finance, and the latter would have to fight the Administrators annually. (Hear, hear.) He admitted that it was part of the duty of a Minister to fight, but he sometimes had quite enough of it without any additional causes of strife. The Convention had desired to prevent struggles, and had provided for the appointment of a Commission, on the recommendations of which a law might be framed which would make fighting impossible. As regarded Sir L. Phillips’ amendment, he would ask what right did the hon. member have to presume that Provincial Councils would be extravagant, seeing that they had to find half of the money? Surely, if the Union Parliament could be trusted, the Provincial Councils could be, too, for a half-million, which was a mere bagatelle to the Union Parliament, but was of the utmost importance to the Councils, whose sources of revenue were limited. If the £ for £ principle was not a sufficient guarantee against extravagance, they could not expect Sir L. Phillips’ amendment to be any safeguard. It might be possible to say something for Mr. Merriman’s amendment if the Minister of Finance were always prepared to fight, but he thought the amendment might lead in an opposite direction to that intended by the mover. It was not a pleasant duty to have to fight Administrators annually, especially when the Minister happened to feel that his seat was threatened by a Provincial Councillor. (Cries of “Oh!”) That was the argument adopted by Mr. Merriman. The sources of revenue in the Provinces were limited, and that fact in itself would prevent the wasting of money. If it did not prevent the wasting of money, the amendment would not effect it.

said he was sorry he could not agree with the hon. member for Bloemfontein in regard to the clause in the South Africa Act giving any control whatsoever. To disallow an Ordinance, as the section said, was no means of checking expenditure. Those of them who had had any experience of the passing of Bills knew perfectly well that it took some time, and if an ordinance were to come from the Provincial Council approximating, say, £550,000, and it appeared that it was £50,000 too much, they would not get rid of that £50,000 by merely disallowing the Ordinance. Yesterday evening he was going to point out to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North, who gave his explanation of what this clause meant, that he understood still less after that what the real intention of the clause was.

It was not by any means a simple clause. He did not propose to regard it from the financial point of view, but from the point of view of what it meant. Although in 1915, if the Provincial Council exceeded the expenditure of the previous year by more than 7⅟₂ per cent., it could only get a third, suppose it had exceeded it by 25 to 30 per cent, it could only get one-third between the difference of that and 7⅟₂ per cent.; but in 1916 its expenditure might be increased by the whole 30 per cent. It then, unless its expenditure for that year was more than its expenditure for the previous year, would not have to pay, but would get one half. That was a fine state of affairs! All that the Provincial Council would have to do in one year was to be very extravagant, and the next year it would get one half.

And it paid a half.

said that the hon. member seemed to miss the point.

The people paid both.

The people paid both. As the clause stands, I don’t think it will work at all, and it does not carry out the intention of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North, as he understood it. I think the Minister of Finance ought to look into this and see whether it should not be drafted in another way.

said that the right hon. member for Victoria West, in the Select Committee, and now in the House, did his best to wreck the Bill. He had spoken of the large increases in regard to expenditure on education, but had the hon. member taken into account how education had gone on in that Province, and how many more children they had in the schools? Did the hon. member know that the number had increased by more than 37 per cent.? It must not be forgotten that in 1908 they had not had compulsory education in the Cape Province, but today they had it, and every child was compelled to attend school, and they could not do that unless they had the money necessary for that. What did the right hon. member mean by deliberately putting stumbling blocks in the way of the Bill. The country should not suffer as the result of these differences being raised. It might be all right being a financial expert and making an interesting speech dealing with figures, but the great thing was to put that into practice, and make a success of the figures in practice. That was what they had tried to do in the Select Committee. Referring to what had been said with regard to the Divisional Councils, the hon. member said that if a Divisional Council was to be taxed with half that sum, as had been proposed, and there was a deficiency, what would be the result? There would be more taxation. When one saw the stumbling blocks which were put in the way of that Bill by the hon. member for Victoria West, they must protest against it.

said that the hon. member over there (Mr. Schoeman) did not like taxation any more than the rest of them. The point he wanted to bring up was the cost of education per child, and he had tried to show that there was an increase in the cost of education per child. He was not dealing with the general increase of education. Because of the increase in that cost per child, it was necessary to watch the expenditure on education, and see that they got value for the money they spent on it. Let them spend money on education by all means, but let them not throw their money away. (Hear, hear.) Continuing, the hon. member asked, before the Administrator introduced his estimate, was he to bring them to the Minister of Finance to be approved. Was that the suggestion? He moved that the sub-sections be taken seriatim.

This was agreed to.

said that he thought that some of them were rather inclined to lose themselves over that question. (Hear, hear.) He was just as anxious as any member of that committee to see that effective financial control was exercised, either by that House, or the Government, upon the expenditure of the Provinces, and he thought, after all, that they should take a practical view of the matter. (Hear, hear.) In the first place, it seemed that they were rather setting themselves up as a body of men representing a totally different set of taxpayers than the ordinary individual. Hon. members seemed to forget that the same electors had elected them to that House as had elected the members of the Provincial Councils. (Hear, hear.) The. right hon. member representing the division of Victoria West had a colleague in the Provincial Council representing Victoria West. Supposing the Provincial Council of the Cape was extravagant, then his right hon. friend would be able to go to the electors and say, “Don’t blame me, or the Union Parliament, for being extravagant; we have done our best to out down the expenditure, but blame my colleagues in the Provincial Council.” (Laughter.) He thought that they were rather inclined to put themselves on a higher pedestal; but the electors who had elected them to that House had also elected the other people. As to the proposal of the right hon. member that the Estimates of Expenditure (normal and recurrent) should be submitted and receive the approval of the Minister of Finance, they should consider the thing in its practical bearing. (Hear, hear.) The Administrator considered that a certain sum of money was required. After the Administrator and his Executive Committee had framed their estimates of expenditure, these estimates would be submitted to the Minister of Finance for his approval. They would assume that this was done. Did that give any control over expenditure? These estimates were submitted, and the Provincial Council could cut them about as much as they chose. (Mr. MERRIMAN: Not to raise them.) No, but to alter them. Take, for instance, an official’s salary which was set down at £500, the Minister might say he would only consent to the estimates if they reduced the salary to £400, but the Provincial Council restituted the amount and took the difference off something else. If his right hon. friend would refer to section 89 of the South Africa Act, he would see what moneys were to be administered by the Provincial Councils. He did not see that the effect of the right hon. gentleman’s amendment would be to get more financial control. He repeated that the Provincial Councils must be invested with some financial authority because they represented the same taxpayers.

said he did not quite understand what the effect of the right hon. gentleman would be. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman would tell them how this control would be exercised.

said the hon. member for Barberton had given them one piece of wisdom and one piece of information, and that was that the Provincial Councils were elected by the same people who elected that House. The only difference was that the House had to find the money and the Provincial Councils spent it, and that was the sole reason that those who found the money should have some control over it, and that control would be exercised by the Minister of Finance. The financial control was exercised in this House by the Crown in the person of the Minister of Finance. The Crown represented by the Minister, for instance, might say that he could not prove of, say, the construction of an esplanade at Muizenberg, and strike that vote out. Very good. There was no check upon them at all now, and it was extraordinary that they contemplated such a state of affairs. The member for Barberton very properly read out this section of the South Africa Act, but did his hon. friend see that the whole situation had changed since they were framing that Act next door. The idea in the Convention was that as far as possible these Provincial Councils would be self-supporting, but for matters like education a sum should be handed over to them. The idea was that they should be self-supporting bodies. The whole situation had changed. There was no idea about these Provincial Councils being self-supporting. The only Province that spent money of its own was the Cape Province, and they spent half a million of their own money. The other Provinces raised nothing. They spent money which was raised by general revenue. The Minister seemed to be striking a blow at the sound policy that the Crown should control expenditure. Proceeding, the hon. gentleman referred to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, who, he said, had read him a lesson. He gathered that the hon. member was not in the House last night. He and his hon. friend had gone through very hard times together. He did not suppose that the hon. member approved of the measures adopted in 1908 and 1909, and it was simply to avoid a similar state of affairs that he was acting as he did now, therefore, he asked his hon. friend not to be hard upon him. “Oh, no,” said his hon. friend, “they must not restrict expenditure. They must set all sail and not attempt to check progress the rake’s progress. (Laughter.) No, they must not do that.” His hon. friend also denounced him for calling attention to extravagance in regard to education. Let him point out one or two facts. In 1912-13 the educational expenditure of the Cape Province was raised by £100,000, well, £100,000 was not a great sum, and it was well worth spending upon education. How many extra European children did they get to school for that sum? 2,691. Well, he said this was rather extravagant expenditure for the result that had been produced. There were, in addition, 9,500 coloured children, but he took it that not much of this £100,000 additional was spent on them. We were struggling now to get the children to school and were increasing our expenditure enormously. There might be an explanation for it, but we ought to be careful and see that we were getting value for our money. Therefore he hoped the Minister of Finance would not be so stiff-necked as to refuse to take this slight precaution.

said he had been struck by the assumption of certain gentlemen that the members of the Provincial Councils had made up their minds to be as extravagant as they possibly could, and that therefore it was necessary for the Union Parliament to keep a strong hand on their ex expenditure. He was surprised that members of that House should adopt such a tone towards members of the Provincial Councils, especially hon. members who had voted £6,000 apiece to Ministers for their salaries, 1⅟₂ millions for the Union buildings, and to keep up the extravagant system of the dual capital. He was thoroughly convinced that members of the Provincial Councils would be just as careful in spending public money as members of this House could possibly be. Had the Provincial Councils’ expenditure in the past been wasteful or extravagant? The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) seemed to have an obsession, for he was always referring to a certain gentleman who was going about the country promising money, and because of that the hon. member condemned Provincial Councils. The members of the Natal Provincial Council had been very cautious in their expenditure, although, of course, it had increased as a good deal of leeway had to be made up. It must be remembered that the roads in Natal were much more easily cut up than those in other parts of the Union, because of the hilly nature of the country, while the cost of maintenance was greater. A great deal of damage had also been done to Natal roads by the recent floods which would have to be made good. Mr. Henderson then quoted from a report by Sir P. M. Laurence, which stated that owing to their position and other special circumstances, the Free State and Natal, with their urgent requirements and limited resources, could claim for special treatment regarding the construction of roads and bridges. Continuing, Mr. Henderson said the Minister of Finance had stated that he had frequently returned the Estimates of the Provincial Councils in order that they might be reduced, so that it was clear that he had some control.

You are taking it away.

That control has been exercised in the past. In conclusion, Mr. Henderson said that the clause regarding the 7⅟₂ per cent contribution was fully discussed in the Select Committee. The first idea was that the excess allowed should be 10 per cent., but there was another proposal to limit it to 5 per cent., and as a compromise the committee decided on 7⅟₂ per cent. That was a reasonable compromise.

said they must expect an increase, because more was being done to take education to children in sparsely populated districts, where education cost more per head than it did in thickly populated areas. However, there must be some effective limitation upon the expenditure of the Council. He could not support the amendment of the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog), and before accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West the House ought to consider whether it would not do away with the Provincial Councils altogether. Under the circumstances the best thing to do would be to bring into effect the decision of the Select Committee.

said that, with all due respect to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, he did not think the clause made for economy, because it made it almost imperative on the Provincial Councils to exceed their expenditure every year after 1914 by 7⅟₂ per cent. He thought Provincial Councils would take very good care that their estimates were exceeded by 7⅟₂ per cent. Supposing that three of the Councils spent the excess of 7⅟₂ per cent and one did not, what would be the result when the members of the latter body went back to their constituents? He thought they would have a very bad time of it. (Laughter.) He pointed out that if the estimates exceeded 7⅟₂ per cent., the Provincial Councils would have to pay 3₃⁄₄per cent, and the Union Parliament 3₃⁄₄ per cent., but if the Councils exceeded their estimates by 8 per cent., the Union would pay only 2₂⁄₃ per cent. That would protect the Union expenditure, as the chances were that the Provincial Councils would keep every year their excess expenditure down to the 7⅟₂ per cent.

said that they had to spend money in country districts on education. It was in the country that people suffered, while townspeople were fairly well off. He would support General Hertzog’s amendment, or, if that could not be carried, he would vote for the original 7⅟₂ per cent. The attack which had been made by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn and the right hon. member for Victoria West in the matter of education was not called for. The speaker had full confidence in the members of the Council. The money was not being spent in the country parts, and there appeared to be a leakage somewhere which the Minister ought to do his best to discover. Did they want to limit the expenditure on education, and yet at the same time demand that all teachers should be certificated? How could that possibly be done without money?

said that his objection to the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West was that he thought it would not work. At the time the Convention was sitting, a great point was made of the powers that had been given to the Provincial Councils, and it was argued that these Provincial Councils would substitute the Federal system, which was desired in some quarters, and the members enlarged upon the powers that the Provincial Councils were going to have. The Estimates of the Provincial Councils had to be approved by the Governor-General-in-Council. His experience of the Provincial Councils at any rate, so far as the Transvaal was concerned was that at present they had no responsibility. When the Estimates were put before them, and members argued that they were not spending enough money on education, they were told that that was all that the Treasury was allowing them to spend, and they wondered what they were there for, if they were not to spend the money that it was necessary should be spent. The amendment proposed to continue that system. In his opinion, the whole thing was a sham. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman said that the whole scheme had changed since the Convention sat, but he (Mr. Duncan) did not understand in what details things had changed. The hon. member said that when the Convention sat, their ideas were that they would be able to give to the Provincial Councils sufficient sources of revenue to make themselves self-supporting, with moderate or small grants from the Union Government. The revenues that existed then were practically the revenues that existed at the present time. When the Financial Relations Commission sat, they found it impossible to allocate to the Provincial Councils any sources of revenue which would be adequate to meet their expenditure. The Convention ought to have known that too. The House now was faced with the question: were they prepared to say now to the Provincial Councils that they had given them all the sources of revenue it was possible to give them, and that they must find the balance themselves? No man having a practical understanding of the position could say that; the thing was impossible. Were they going to listen day after day to this declamation? He would like some of the critics to come forward with an alternative scheme, and then they would be in a position to see how far they fell short. (Hear, hear.) The only means of controlling those bodies that he knew was by making them find as large a part as possible of the expenditure. There was no other way. The Bill had many faults, and it seemed to be gaining faults, judging by the various speeches that had been made; but he would like to know how far hon. members were prepared to go in the direction of saying that the Provincial Councils must tax themselves. How much of the deficit were they prepared to leave? Under the existing circumstances of this country, it would not be possible, in his opinion, to do more than leave them to find half of the expenditure themselves. The hon. member and others said that their educational expenditure was very large, and they were not getting value for it; but the Act of Union gave Provincial Councils responsibility for primary and secondary education, and it was almost impossible that hon. members of that House should criticise expenditure on education for which they had no responsibility.

Except paying.

The country had to find the money but the Act of Union made the distinction between the services the country had to pay for, and decided that contain of it should be in the hands of the Provincial Councils. The Provincial Councils were to be entirely responsible for educational expenditure, subject to the veto of the Provincial Ordinance, and now they wanted to tear up that part of the Act of Union and give the Provincial Councils different responsibilities altogether from that which the Act of Union gave them. He was told that even some of the prominent members of the Convention wanted now to put them upon an entirely different basis, so that their action should be subject to the control of the Union Government. But that was quite contrary to the Act of Union, and it was not for that House to interfere in that way, and go to the extent of taking matters out of their hands. In times of financial stringency it would be difficult for the Union minister to raise the revenue, but it would be equally difficult in a smaller sphere in the case of Provincial Councils, and that would be a sufficient check. The restrictions they put in the Bill were, in his opinion, sufficient for the period for which this Bill was to last, and the amendment of the right hon. gentleman by making the estimates of the Provincial Councils subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance was one that would entirely destroy the sense of responsibility and usefulness of the Provincial Councils. If they were going to have in the next four years an inquiry into what was the most suitable form of self-government it was not fair to the Provincial Councils to prevent them in that time from doing what they could, not under the Parliament of this House, but under the terms of the Act of Union.

said the right hon. gentleman had explained to them that the object of his amendment was to place Provincial Councils in the same position as a private member of that House. There was a vast difference between the two cases. In that House it was not possible for a member to make a proposal which would involve expenditure, but he could make a proposal which would bring pressure upon the Minister to sanction that expenditure. Under this proposal a Council might feel aggrieved by the decision, but it would have no effect upon the Minister. As the Provincial Council would have no remedy, pressure would most certainly be brought to bear upon this House to insist upon the Minister widening the purse strings. The meant that they were going to have a debate every year in that House on the Provincial Budgets as well as on the Union Budget.

So we should if we find the money.

said that that was what the right hon. gentleman’s object was. His object was to make the Provincial Councils impossible. Why didn’t he say frankly that he did not want the Provincial Councils and did not want this Bill at all. If it were going to be merely a formal sanction, such as the sanction required by the Governor-General-in-Council to the Provincial Councils, they knew the great indisposition there was on the part of that House to review or take any measures in regard to the discretion which the Governor-General exercised in reference to Provincial Ordinances. He believed it would be equally impossible by questioning the discretion of the Minister of Finance in similar circumstances. If it were going to be effective they were going to take away the responsibility of the Provincial Councils. It was no part of the business of that House to assume that the Provincial Councils had no sense of responsibility. If they had a sense of responsibility the only thing that was going to bring that home to them was, as the right hon. gentleman rightly said, that they must be responsible for the passing of measures which were going to impose taxation to pay, at all events, for part of that expenditure. The right hon. gentleman ought to have tested the feeling of that House on the second reading. He came there and he was the sturdiest and keenest critic of the Government, but that criticism very rarely made itself felt when it came to the voting. If they were going to spend day after day in again discussing this principle, which was settled on the second reading, it appeared to him they were not likely to get this Bill passed, and it would be, he thought, better in that case to bring this matter to an issue in some way or another and test whether they were going to put the Provincial Councils into a position where they would have some responsibility or whether it was the desire of the House to go and treat the Provincial Councils, as they had been treated during the last few years, by just giving them subsidies and no real responsibilities.

said he thought it was rather rich to hear his hon. friend (Mr. Creswell) after the many speeches they had heard from the cross benches, talking about taking up the time of the House. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Fordsburg had suggested that they wanted to put the Provincial Councils in shackles, and so forth. The whole of this discussion arose from the fact that the whole basis of this grant was a rotten basis. The basis had been taken from the Cape, but there the pound for pound expenditure by the Cape was certainly supervised by the Government itself. No School Board, local authority, or committee could spend any money at all except it were approved by the department. They all knew that the pound for pound grant was given rather to encourage expenditure. Now they adopted a principle which, to his mind, was absolutely rotten in an important measure of this kind How were they going to impose restrictions on what they knew would be the evils of the principle? He thought it would have been a very much sounder principle to give a grant per head of the population. Then they would have known where they stood. He should support the amendment of the right hon. gentleman, because it would give a check in some degree, and because he believed that the more checks they had the better. If they objected to an Ordinance it would simply lead to a deadlock. It would be some check if the estimates were approved of by the Minister of Finance. In the Cape, the expenditure had grown 38 per cent; and as to education, did the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Kuhn) know that the increase was 44 per cent, over 1910-11? In Natal it had grown 75 per cent.; in the Transvaal, 26₃⁄₄ per cent.; and in the Free State no less than 108 per cent.; education having grown 81 per cent, there.

said that these increases had been so persistently pressed upon the attention of honourable members that they had come to over-shadow the question before the House. He pointed out that it must be remembered, when they considered these increases, that a large amount of leeway had to be made up. In 1907-08 the figure for the Cape Province was £555,000, in 1908-09 it had dropped to £496,000, and there was an actual deficit of £59,000, which had been covered by local authorities. In 1909-10 the amount was £420,000, a further decrease of £16,000. There was no increase there from year to year, but an actual decrease. In 1910-11 they got back to the figure of 1908-09, when £558,000 were spent for ten months. There was thus for this period a leeway of £135,000, without allowing for the natural advance on previous years of depression also. As long as they in the Cape Province had worked under the old guarantor system, the department had never met the whole amount of what the education of a child cost. Before the School Board Act had come into force they had had local endeavour and effort, and in the Paarl district they had raised £2,500 to meet the local demand for education. Why these figures looked so big now was because these local contributions had not been taken into account did not figure in the books of the Department and now these local contributions were not made towards local educational matters. The Government might be paying more, but the increase was not really so great as it seemed. Previous to the Act of the Cape of 1905, the cost of education per child was the amount it cost the Government plus the amount it cost the people locally in moneys raised locally. If that total was compared with the amount which now figures on the books of the Education Department as cost per child, it would be found that the difference was not so tremendously great as had been argued during that debate. Of course, there was technical education, increased salaries to teachers, and the like, but, still, he thought that much of that increase was an apparent one Then under the old system they had bodies which paid for the education of poor children, but now there was an apparent increase in the cost of education because it all passed through the department. The hon. member went on to say that it was estimated that more than 80 per cent. of the European children in the Cape Province were attending school

said that it was much less, and referred to the census returns.

went on to say that the percentage was certainly 80, or over. The nearer they got to 100 per cent, the more it would cost, and it would also cost them more to get in the children from the country districts than in regard to those from the thickly populated towns. The question that would decide the retention or the abolition of the Provincial Councils would be whether the Provincial Councils had provided efficient education for the children, and he thought that as long as the Provincial Councils provided an educational system which was effective, and provided that they were not extravagant in connection with education, he believed that the vote would go in favour of the retention of the Provincial Councils. (Hear, hear.) At any rate, the Union Parliament had the power of abolishing them, and that was the sword that hung over their heads. If they were too extravagant, Parliament might abolish them.

said that he understood that under the Bill, Provincial Councils were to remain for a period of four years, and, under the circumstances, that committee would have to devote its attention to the best way of financing these bodies and making them useful bodies to administer the affairs of their Provinces. He must confess that he was surprised at the motion of the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), because he was a great stickler for Parliamentary privileges and rights, and here he proposed that the estimates of the Provincial Councils should be submitted and should be subject to the control, not of Parliament, but of the Minister of Finance. That was an extraordinary proposal. What had been the experience with regard to the Provincial Councils? It was that owing to the manner in which their estimates had been tied up by that House, members, of the Provincial Councils lost all interest in the business of their Councils, because they were only brought together to agree to the estimates which had been passed by Parliament. If they were going to tie up the Provincial Councils in that manner, and as, with the effluxion of time, members retired, they would not get a decent man to come forward. (Hear, hear.) What they wanted to do was to get the best local men to come forward for the Provincial Councils. He did not say that the Provincial Councils were perfect, or that if they had to start de novo they would have them on the same basis; but they must allow them to get up their own estimates and to discuss how the money was to be spent. He was surprised at his hon. friend the member for Cape Town, Central, than whom they had no stronger advocate for the rights of the people to manage their own local affairs. He said even if this people desired to knock their heads against a brick wall, well, let them do it.

At their own cost?

But surely it was at their own cost? Whether the revenue should be raised by that House or the taxpayers of the country, it didn’t matter so long as they decided to give them a certain revenue; then they were entitled to decide how that money should be expended. Surely one of the reasons for the establishment of the Provincial Councils was that they thought in a huge country of this sort hon. members representing the four Provinces in that House, could not understand the local requirements of the Provinces in the same way as people got together to deal with the affairs of the Province. (Hear, hear.) That argument also was equally applicable to the manner in which the money should be expended

said the amendment of his right hon. friend had led to a second reading debate, like something that they had heard last night. When they read the Bill a second time he had announced that the Select Committee would deal with the basis of the details, and they would simply have to examine them.

There was one important consideration that they should bear in mind, and that was that the Bill would be in operation for four years, and if, during that period of probation, the Provincial Council proceeded to run up expenditure unduly, he was certain that after that four years had elapsed their fate would be sealed. They would be upon their trial during that period, and they would know how they had to proceed. With regard to the particular amendment of his right hon. friend, he considered it very carefully, and if it had been workable he would have gone a long way to meet him He was always in favour of putting a check upon undue expenditure, but he was convinced that the proposition was not workable. If the Minister of Finance had to approve every item in the Estimates of the Provinces, what would be the result? They would not be the Estimates of the Provincial Councils at all. Both his predecessors and himself had cut down these Estimates enormously, and yet they were left with such results. Supposing that the amendment were adopted, and the Minister had to approve of the Estimates. The Estimates which would be placed before the Provincial Councils would be the Estimates of the Minister of Finance. He was inclined to believe, with his hon. friend the member for Barberton, that if they adopted the amendment they would come into conflict with section 89 of the South Africa Act, but he could well understand that there might be a case of financial stringency where the Minister of Finance might have to go very carefully, and he thought in that case that if she Minister would argue in a fatherly way with the Provincial Administrations, that would go further, he thought, than the strict letter of the law. (Laughter and cheers.) He thought they might now come to the conclusion not only upon this amendment, but upon the second reading of the debate.

said that a strong objection had been raised to the right hon. gentleman’s amendment, because it allowed the Minister to go through these Estimates and to delete whatever he liked. Could they not alter the amendment so as to give the Minister the power to ask the Provincial Councils to reduce the total.

That would not be necessary.

The amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West was negatived.

wanted to know whether he could not put a small proviso to the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville to the effect that all payments made for rent and taxes and the cost of all services rendered on behalf of the Administration of the Provincial Councils, should be deducted from the subsidies which the Provinces should be entitled to. He pointed out that the Union Government paid £1,500 for rent, besides taxes for the building in which the Provincial Council deliberated in Cape Town. Now, he thought that was a proper charge for the Provincial Councils to bear, and that was what he meant by the word “payment.” As regarded the words “cost of all services rendered,” he would point out the position to his hon. friend. With regard to Public Works, they would find from the report of the Controller and Auditor-General that on Union works the amount spent for the year was rather less than 60,000, but the expenditure on salaries and transport amounted to £160,000. As soon as one saw these figures one saw there was a mistake somewhere. The Public Works Department, in addition to that sum during the period in review, expended £1,500,000 in the Provinces for work done for them by the Union. Surely if they were going to give the Provinces all these powers, it was only fair and reasonable that they should pay for the work done for them just as a private individual would pay for it. He would suggest that for all work done by the Union for the Provincial Councils, the latter should be charged 7⅟₂ percent. That would be business and would be a perfectly fair charge. The House would then be able to see exactly what the Provinces did cost.

said the result of the amendment of the hon. member for George would not be quite so innocent as the hon. member would have the House to believe. It would not be at all a simple matter of accountancy. The consequence of the amendment would be additional expenditure. Where was the additional money to come from? It did not provide for that. There was a certain amount of fairness in the suggestion of the hon. member for George, but it would simply lead them into fresh difficulties. The Provincial Councils would require more money, and consequently the Minister of Finance would have to find new sources of revenue. The Provinces would have to defray half of the expenditure, but their sources of income were not calculated to cover those additional expenses. There was a good deal to be said in favour of the principle of the amendment, but without further allocations of revenue to them, the principle could not be applied. The Bill would remain in force only four years, and if the Union had been able to bear the burden during the past three years, it could continue to do so for the additional period. (Hear, hear.)

said he did not think they should accept the amendment of the hon. member for George, for if it were carried, the tendency would be for the Provinces to start their own services. The Government’s policy had been to get a strong Union service, of a high technical character, which could do work both for the Union and the Provinces, and thus do away with the necessity of the latter starting small Public Works Departments of their own. But if the Provinces found that they had to pay 7⅟₂ percent to the Union, they might set up Public Works Departments for themselves. The Union Government had allowed the Provincial Administrations to occupy public buildings for nothing, but now it was suggested that they should pay rent. He would point out that clause 10 provided that nothing therein contained should be construed as relieving any Province from liability to repay the Governor-General the cost of any such services rendered to that Province by the Union, as the Governor-General might from time to time determine.

pointed out that in Cape Town alone the Union Government paid £1,500 a year in rent. It also paid for the lighting of Union buildings occupied by Provincial Administrations. The present arrangement under which services were rendered to the Provinces by the Union Public Works Department led to extravagance, as many applications were made by Provincial Councils for surveys, and so on, to be carried out by Union officials, which would not be made if the Provinces had to pay the cost themselves.

Mr. Currey’s amendment was negatived.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville (Sir L. Phillips) was put and declared lost.

called for a division, which was taken with the following result:

called for a division, which was taken with the following result:

moved the following proviso to sub-section (1): “ And provided further that of the revenue derived by way of subsidy in respect of local rates not less than one-half of such subsidy shall be expended in the locality from which such local rates are levied.’ He said he hoped that the fairness of this would commend itself to the House. There was no doubt a sort of feeling that the nearer you were to the fire the warmer you got, and the expenditure of the Provincial Councils tended to large places and the outside places were neglected. The right hon. member went on to say that £80,000 raised in the Cape Province, from which they got a subsidy, was raised by the natives in the Native Territories, and it would only be fair and common justice that half of that subsidy should be spent in the place where it was raised.

Would not my hon. friend report progress now? It is a very important thing, which is now before this House.

pointed out that the matter had been discussed already in Select Committee.

said that his amendment was not on all fours with the one which had been moved in the Select Committee. There it had been proposed that the money should be handed back to the body which had raised it, and that might act in the opposite direction to what the present motion would do. In the other thing the money would be spent in the locality for the benefit of that locality.

moved that in line 31 the words “or any such local authority now or hereafter established ” be inserted.

moved: At the end of paragraph (b) to insert the following provision (c), viz.: (c) “ Provided further, that no higher salaries shall be paid to any officials in the Service of the Provincial Administrations than may be recommended by the Civil Service Commission unless the consent of the Governor-General-in-Council shall have been obtained.”

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again on Monday.